Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/25/2005MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Tanaka called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner McManus led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1 • ROLL CALL: Present: Vice Chairman Jack Tanaka; and Commissioners Ruth Low; Joe McManus; and Steve Tye. Chairman Dan Nolan was excused. Also present: Nancy Fong, Planning Manager; Bradley Wohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney; Ann Lungu, Assoociate Planner; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered, 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the.Regular Meeting of January 11, 2005, C/Tye moved, C/McManus seconded to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 11, 2005, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT 5. OLD BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None Tye, McManus, None Chair/Nolan Low, VC/Tanaka JANUARY 25, 2005 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7.1 Development Code Amendment No. 2005-01 - a request to amend Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.36. ARTICLE III -SECTION 22.36 — Sign Standards: Amendment relates to the substitution of non-commercial messages for on-site signs. PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT: Citywide City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PM/l=ong presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission adopt resolution recommending City Council approval of Development Code Amendment No, 2005-01. ACA/Wohlenberg explained that this item was brought to the City as a result of recent decisions handed down by the courts. There are two types of speech, commercial speech and non-commercial speech. Non-commercial speech includes political speech, which is considered to be a greater more protected type of speech than commercial speech. Sign ordinances covering businesses must not favor the less protected commercial speech over the more protected non-commercial speech. Accordingly, courts have advised cities to include the substitution clauses in their sign ordinances. A number of cities have been sued for not having these types of clauses included -in their ordinances and this recommendation comes to Diamond Bar to ensure that property owners' rights are constitutionally protected and preserved as well as protecting the City against potentially frivolous litigation. ACA/Wohlenberg responded to C/Tye that the lawsuits were brought on grounds of free speech. However, they were settled very quickly under applicable federal statutes with attorneys' fees applied for and granted. The substitution clause would take the City a further step away from regulating sign content. PM/Fong said that the likelihood of businesses removing their current signage to substitute signs was remote because of the cost involved. C/McManus asked ACA/Wohlenberg to elaborate on more protected commercial speech/less protected non-commercial speech. ACA/ Wohlenberg explained that courts have identified a difference between commercial and non-commercial speech and have said that commercial speech was less important than non-commercial speech because non- JANUARY 25, 2005 Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION commercial speech includes political speech or core speech. If the City has a regulation allowing for only commercial signs and not for non- commercial signs it would indicate favoritism toward the less protected speech. C/Low asked if the courts required actual damage before hearing a case. ACA/Wohlenberg responded not always because they would argue that there was a violation of the ability to engage in free speech because the City was restricting the entities' ability to express itself in -this fashion. If a sign owner asked to put up a sign that contained certain language and the City said no the owner would have established their standing at that point. These lawsuits are filed under Section 1983 violation, the section of federal law used to enforce constitutional rights. The aftorneys' fees are collected under Section 1988. If there are no other federal laws allowing an individual to bring a lawsuit Section 1988 applies to allow attorneys fees for an individual to pursue these types of lawsuits. The courts have said that cities could require a sign be removed within a reasonable time after an election but cities may not limit how early these signs could be installed prior to an election. The proposed change merely allows an individual/entity to change the copy of a permitted sign to read other than it currently reads. To C/Tye's concern, ACA/Wohlenberg said he felt that the practical effect of the change would be minimal as pointed out by PM/Fong. However, in order to keep the City from being sued the ordinance must allow people to change their signs if they choose to do so. C/McManus felt that the amendment would eliminate the two categories of commercial and non-commercial speech. ACA/Wohlenberg agreed with C/McManus's assessment. in this case however, the courts said that individuals must be allowed to display any verbiage as long as it did not violate any obscenity rules. C/Tye said it seemed reasonable that businesses would be allowed to put up commercial signs in commercial areas. What troubled him was that the amendment appeared to favor commercial speech over non-commercial speech which was not true. C/Tye felt this was nonsense and while he wanted to limit the City's liability it was, in his opinion time for good people to stand up and tell the 9h Circuit Court they were making a mistake because it defied logic. ACA/Wohlenberg responded to VC/Tanaka that this amendment applied to signs on private property only and not on public property. Vice Chair/Tanaka opened the public hearing. JANUARY 25, 2005 Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Vice Chair/Tanaka closed the public hearing. C/McManus moved, C/Low seconded to adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval of Development Code Amendment No. 2005-01. Motion carried 3-1 by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: McManus, Low, VC/Tanaka Tye Chair/Nolan 8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS AND INFORMATION ITEMS: On the subject of commercial speech over non-commercial speech, C/McManus expressed that through his experience he understood there were things that did not make sense. He had also learned that there was no such thing as common sense and what seemed on its face to be prima facie and self-evident was not always the case where others were concerned. 9. STAFF COMMENTS AND INFORMATION ITEMS: PM/Fong advised the Commission that although tonight's meeting was short there were four items scheduled for the February 8 meeting. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, VC/Tanaka adjourned the meeting at 7:28 p.m. Attest: Jack Tanaka, Vice Chairman Respectful Nancy Fong Planning Manag